overclocking Geforce 9500gt

[upstage]

how hard can i push this card does anyone know its a 1gb card dont know if that matters

[Krusty]

You know, the 9000 line of GeForce cards is fairly good when considering the higher-end stuff, but a 9500 is what you consider a "budget" card, a lower-end card.

They make all their GPUs the same way, and then test them afterwards. The ones that run as they should go into the higher-clock-speeds 9800s and whatnot, but the ones that can't run at higher speeds are derated, put in lower end cards. This way, Nvidia can use an entire batch, and just spread it out from "super hot high speed" to "low end, budget basement" cards.

So, in general, a 9500, by default, is already less susceptible to over clocking than a 9600 or 9800.

I would not advise doing any overclocking on it.

EDIT: By that I mean, you "can" physically go through the motions of overclocking it, but you don't know if it can only take 1% over, or 200% over, before frying. IMO that's not worth the lost money if it's the low-tolerance chip.

[Anodizer]

You know, the 9000 line of GeForce cards is fairly good when considering the higher-end stuff, but a 9500 is what you consider a "budget" card, a lower-end card.

They make all their GPUs the same way, and then test them afterwards. The ones that run as they should go into the higher-clock-speeds 9800s and whatnot, but the ones that can't run at higher speeds are derated, put in lower end cards. This way, Nvidia can use an entire batch, and just spread it out from "super hot high speed" to "low end, budget basement" cards.

So, in general, a 9500, by default, is already less susceptible to over clocking than a 9600 or 9800.

I would not advise doing any overclocking on it.

EDIT: By that I mean, you "can" physically go through the motions of overclocking it, but you don't know if it can only take 1% over, or 200% over, before frying. IMO that's not worth the lost money if it's the low-tolerance chip.

Err, no....  That's absolutely wrong...  The 9500 runs off the G96 core and the 8800, 9800 as well as the 9600 run on the G92 core..  They are two physically different cores and definitely not made the same way..

Now, by all means, give overclocking a shot....  The card will let you know when it doesn't like it..  Go in 10mhz increments for both GPU and memory..  I'd turn the fanspeed(if it has a fan) all the way to 100%..  I quickly looked up the 9500gt and found that it will overclock modestly and give you about a 10% increase in performance..http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132..  All systems are different so you may get a tad more or a tad less....?  Not too much considering you can spend a little more and get a world of difference in performance with much more overclocking capability..

[BaldEagl]

You know, the 9000 line of GeForce cards is fairly good when considering the higher-end stuff, but a 9500 is what you consider a "budget" card, a lower-end card.

They make all their GPUs the same way, and then test them afterwards. The ones that run as they should go into the higher-clock-speeds 9800s and whatnot, but the ones that can't run at higher speeds are derated, put in lower end cards. This way, Nvidia can use an entire batch, and just spread it out from "super hot high speed" to "low end, budget basement" cards.

So, in general, a 9500, by default, is already less susceptible to over clocking than a 9600 or 9800.

I would not advise doing any overclocking on it.

EDIT: By that I mean, you "can" physically go through the motions of overclocking it, but you don't know if it can only take 1% over, or 200% over, before frying. IMO that's not worth the lost money if it's the low-tolerance chip.

Not in the slightest degree correct.  As Anodizer already said, the cores are different as are the memory chips, memory BUS speeds, stream processors and much, much more.

Any of them can be overclocked but you'll have to take it slow and easy continually checking temperatures and stability.  It will be a long and tedious process and although there will be a gain it won't be a lot so it may not be worth the effort you're going to have to expend on it.

[upstage]

thanks guys i was just lookin for some feedback on this .....also i dont know if its related or no but since i put this card in i get excelllent frame rates in beta ....till cv ack shoots(already read the thread)but my FR totally sux in the MA's now not sure if this relates to the card or just a bad server nite

[Krusty]

Sorry, I didn't know that they were using 8000 chips, but in general that's how they produce lower end CPUs and GPUs, they're just the processors on the fabrication die that can't run as intended, so they underclock them and market them lower.

EDIT: And I know the other parts of the cards differ as well, but when overclocking a turd, don't matter if it's on the Autobahn or a dirt road, it still looks and feels like a turd


(not that this card is one, just saying OCing relies on the GPU)

[Anodizer]

Sorry, I didn't know that they were using 8000 chips, but in general that's how they produce lower end CPUs and GPUs, they're just the processors on the fabrication die that can't run as intended, so they underclock them and market them lower.

EDIT: And I know the other parts of the cards differ as well, but when overclocking a turd, don't matter if it's on the Autobahn or a dirt road, it still looks and feels like a turd


(not that this card is one, just saying OCing relies on the GPU)

Krusty, there is no "8800" chips or "9800" chips..  It's the G92(some 8800 and 9600 used the G94 core) Core which resides in the 8800, 9600, and 9800..  I thought this was explained in my first post..  The manufacturing die is altogether different..
The size and geometry between cores is totally different and they are not made on the same die at all....  By what you're saying they use all the same cores but are clocked different due to the chance that the core doesn't clock high enough..  That's just bad info, dude.... 
I would really like to know where you get your info, though, so I can be sure to avoid it at all costs...

[Krusty]

Anodizer, you have said that in the past, and I know this already. However it's much easier for folks to understand when you include the series number. It's a generalization.

EDIT: And the way I described the chips on the fabrication die has been how they have manufactured chips for almost a decade now, unless they've recently changed it.

[Anodizer]

Anodizer, you have said that in the past, and I know this already. However it's much easier for folks to understand when you include the series number. It's a generalization.

EDIT: And the way I described the chips on the fabrication die has been how they have manufactured chips for almost a decade now, unless they've recently changed it.

Well, your generalization is incorrect,l I'm sorry to say..  Is it much easier for folks to understand?  Or is it just easier for you to understand?  There is no particular "8800" chip or anything like that..  It would be better to say the "8800 series" or "9800 series" video card instead of "8800 chip"..  Using your analogy is just plain bad information and serves no one, no matter how much you try to justify it.. 

As I said before, each different core has a different die because they are physically different in size..  The G96 core is not the same size as an NV45 core and so one.. 
You are talking almost double the transistors alone in one core as compared to another..  This can't be done on the same die..  This has been the case since Nvidia/ATI/MATROX/etc.
have been making GPU's (over ten years)..

Again, where do you get this info??  Or is it just made up?  Truly curious..  Not trying to pick a fight or anything..  Just wondering...?